BELL - v - KARRAS [1997] IRCA 214

BELL - v - KARRAS [1997] IRCA 214

The applicant did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the respondent engaged in conduct that did or would have the effect of bringing his employment to an end. The evidence indicated that the respondent was investigating allegations of misconduct and that the applicant stated he no longer wanted to work for the respondent. The probationary employee defence was unsustainable because no probationary period extending beyond the alleged termination date had been determined in advance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Compensation Alleging Termination of Employment in Contravention of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 / Reasons for Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'termination at the Initiative of the Employer' 'probationary Employment' 'workplace Relations Act 1996']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'termination at the Initiative of the Employer' 'probationary Employment' 'workplace Relations Act 1996']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Compensation Alleging Termination of Employment in Contravention of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 / Reasons for Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's employment was terminated at the initiative of the respondent." 'Whether the applicant was a probationary employee precluded by section 170CC of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and Regulation 30B of the Workplace Relations Regulations.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the respondent engaged in conduct that did or would have the effect of bringing his employment to an end. The evidence indicated that the respondent was investigating allegations of misconduct and that the applicant stated he no longer wanted to work for the respondent. The probationary employee defence was unsustainable because no probationary period extending beyond the alleged termination date had been determined in advance.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']